Furthermore, potential competition between providers may lead to the lowering of access conditions. In the second case, providers may lose benefits as it is often difficult to bilaterally monitor the long processes of R&D and commercialization. As a result, providers may start restricting legal access to genetic

resources in order to minimize the assumed lost benefits (Winter, 2013). To alleviate these concerns, the ‘common pool’ approach has been proposed as more suitable, especially for genetic resources used by the find more agriculture and forestry sectors (e.g., Halewood et al., 2013b and Winter, 2013). Under this concept, genetic resources are provided for common use and the R&D benefits are shared between providers and users. A special feature of common pools is that different stakeholders often act both as providers and users in contributing (resources or results) to the R&D process. Common pools, such as farmers’ seed exchange systems or networks of collections or databases, can operate at local, national or international levels, and they are often regulated by participating actors rather than states (Winter, 2013). The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA),

which entered into force in September 2004, is a rare example of a common pool approach that has been given an international legal framework. However, the common Etoposide nmr Masitinib (AB1010) pool approach is also not flawless; some actors may enjoy the common benefits without sharing their genetic resources or the results of their R&D work, if the rules of engagement are unclear or if they are not properly enforced (Halewood et al., 2013b). The provisions of the Nagoya Protocol do not apply for those genetic resources that are covered by a specialized international ABS instrument such as the ITPGRFA, which was designed for major food crops and forages. This has led to discussion on whether the ITPGRFA

could be extended to cover other plant species or, alternatively, whether one or more new sector-specific ABS instruments should be negotiated to cover the genetic resources of aquatic species, farm animals, forest trees and micro-organisms and invertebrates. Article 4 of the Nagoya Protocol allows the Parties to develop and implement specialized ABS agreements, provided that they are supportive of the CBD and the Nagoya Protocol. However, it takes years to develop such specialized ABS agreements. Therefore, once the Nagoya Protocol enters into force, it will set the ABS framework for the genetic resources of non-crop species including forest trees. The direct impacts of the Nagoya Protocol on the forestry sector’s R&D work are likely to be immediate and significant. The first problem is the entry into force of the Protocol before all signatory countries have created a fully functional ABS regulatory system.